In many ways, seeing
My Sister's Keeper in the theatre is the opposite of seeing
Transformers: Rise of the Fallen, which trumped it in opening weekend sales by several million dollars. While
Transformers catered to primarily male audiences, and was little besides epic music and explosions, I was one of approximately five males for my showing of
My Sister's Keeper, which featured no epic music, no fight scenes, but did offer a carefully constructed plot and believable dialog.
The film centers around an ethical dilemma. A young married couple has two children, and everything seems right with the world. Then, they discover that their young daughter, Kate, has a rare form of leukemia and will surely die within a few years. The odds of finding a marrow donor are miniscule. So they have a second daughter, in vitro, using chromosomal technology to assure that she will be a perfect match for her sister.
From the moment Anna was born, she was keeping her sister alive. First they used her cord blood and stem cells. Then her blood, then her bone marrow. At the time of the movie's plot, she is eleven, and scheduled to donate her kidney, as Kate is going into full kidney failure. Only, Anna convinces her brother to take her to a high-profile attorney, to sue her family for medical emancipation, the rights to her own body.
The plot of the film takes off from there.
And without ruining the film (which is touching and beautiful, very well adapted from the novel), the bare situation raises a number of ethical questions in the viewer.
- If you were a parent, would you have a second child to extend the life of your first, even if that meant subjecting them both to years of surgeries and hospital stays?
- If you were raised as an organ farm for your older sibling, could there come a point where you'd say no?
- If you were a judge, ruling on the case of the 11-year-old girl in this situation, would you rule that she had a right to deny her organs to her sister? (Legally, the answer is no, a ruling in her favor would set a precedent.)
- As a corollory, how can a Christian face ethical dilemmas as well as tragedies like this christianly?
With those thoughts in mind, go see
My Sister's Keeper. Nothing explodes, but at least it will make you think.
-NDSR
Comments (32)
It's a disturbing movie and makes people question those medical ethics and selfish, organ harvesting parents. I will never create another child just to save another. Humans are humans, not clones.
Great review...I want to see this.
I do not know what I would do if I was desperate,things like desperation and starvation make you do things that normally you would not do.
I watched Transformers 2. The opening battle sequence was so cool it made up for the roughly two hours of unfunny "comedy" that made up the rest of the movie until the last battle scene.
All I'll say is that 11-year-old girl had the right to sue. Treating a living human being like an organ farm is sick.
I want to read the novel before I see the movie. But it looks pretty interesting. Did you ever see the Island could you imagine if we really started doing these things?
@ModernBunny - oh my gosh I can't watch that movie. the first one knocked me out. but I will admit that I'm going to the midnight showing of harry potter. it's going to be playing at the imax in the museum of science and industry! :)
@TheSecretLifeOfPandas - LOL, I'll likely be seeing Harry Potter too. I've seen all of them in a theatre except the 4th one.
Harvesting cord blood does not endanger the child. So I don't see a problem with that. Bone marrow, is a bit more of a gray area. It isn't 100% safe, but neither is it unreasonably dangerous. But taking vital organs away from one child to save the life of another, is just wrong. I don't think living-donor donations of organs should be allowed by minors, or at least not without some major restrictions to protect the right of the child to decide how much of their body they are willing to part with. Bone marrow regenerates. Kidneys don't. I find it interesting... and sickening... that we live in a society so obsessed with a woman's "right" to choose to kill a baby inside of her - yet a living, breathing child of eleven doesn't have the right to choose not to risk their life and have part of their body removed? Maybe the kid should go get pregnant; she'd have more rights that way.
Are you serious? Legally she does not have the right to say no? That's wrong.
@seedsower - i agree. until you are in that situation, you really don't know how you'd respond. i'd like to think i would never have a child for those purposes though. but i guess i just know what these hands are capable of...so i try not to say things like "i'd never" anymore..b/c only by grace have i not done some awful things
great post! makes the ole' noggin' think.
I read that book...
Good read. Now I need to see the movie.Wow. Excellent movie review, which typically, btw don't lead me into searching out the movie to see for myself. This however is now a must see. Thank you.
i might get flamed for this... but if were up to no one but me and i was the younger sibling (the donor), i would do nearly anything for my sibling without hesitance--regardless of whether or not i portrayed my parents as "organ farmers." it's a very difficult topic to digest...nevermind a choice to make, but in my heart i know that, if i were a match, i would do it. impractical of me, maybe. i don't care.
i haven't seen the movie, but i am sure (very sure) i will be balling like a baby when i do go see it.
Tough questions.
I personally couldn't do it.
All I'd have to say is that I never chance one of my childrens lifes for another... it is not there fault... and honestly why would I want (as harsh as this sounds) but to sick children to take care of... instead of one sick one and one healthy childs life to celebrate...
While I know I am sure I will love the sick child dearly... Its different when you are dealing with 2 children... and I wont force, or allow my children to donate anyhting until they are of age to make a desicsion... (meaning I understand they know what they are doing)... or there own life has gone so far downhill... that we are sure they will not make it.. and there is another child that has a better chance...
I hope that came out right...
@thekeyhole - You won't get flamed for that answer. The answer that will probably get flamed is the one who says the younger sister shouldn't have a choice as to whether or not she keeps her organs or continues the medical procedures.
As far as my response to this, I'm not sure I would even have another child just to make a match for the first one. That alone would probably make me feel irrational and desperate (though I'm sure most parents would be desperate). To me it would feel like raising a child as some type of organ farm. And that's just sick.
But then, if I did have another kid who just happened to be a match then I don't know. Besides maybe blood I don't think I could ask them to donate marrow or organs. At least not until they're of age. And even then I would hope that I'd have raised my child in a loving enough environment where I wouldn't need to ask, but they'd volunteer on their own. However if they didn't I would understand as well.
It's just not fair to put so much negativity into one child's life (all the constant surgical procedures and hospital stays among other things) just to keep another one alive.
@MangoWOW - true... thanks
@TheSecretLifeOfPandas - The novel and the movie version of this story are very different, just so you know. Both were amazing, in my opinion, but they differ greatly, especially at the ends.
I bought the book and I am reading it. I really want to go and see this. I think it is wrong to be an organ farm. if that happened to me, I would do the exact same thing. What would you do? I love this post. I haven't even seen the first transformers. I may go see it? Who knows?
I want to see this movie now. I hope the clone girl wins, because this whole thing is dumb.
People die every day. Why is one kid somehow more important than another? Why not just have the second kid for the sake of having a kid? Ugh. Those parents disgust me.
My Sister's Keeper was the first Jodi Picoult book I ever read... I've read it many times since, but am still divided on the issue that she presents in this novel. I thoroughly enjoy her style, in that she portrays the issue from multiple sides ... and that's what's keeping me from wanting to see the movie - for how could they do an accurate adaptation? Maybe I'll rent it ... eventually. Still, very good review ... and it's certainly an ethical / moral dilemma.
And if I were the child, I have today that I would do anything to save my sister. I would donate as much blood, marrow, and organs to keep her alive. If I were her only chance, I'd gladly do it all.
If I were a judge, that'd be hard. At what age can we say that children knows what is good for them medically? And yet, if we deny this girl the right to have control over her own body, then why not just overturn Roe v Wade? Is it not the same basis? The same question? If she doesn't want to donate organs, why should she have to? Is it not her choice? But what about her sister's right? Does she not have the right to live?
Btw, I read the book three years ago and I loved it. The twist at the end was amazing and a tad bit ironic.
If you were a judge, ruling on the case of the 11-year-old girl in this situation, would you rule that she had a right to deny her organs to her sister? (Legally, the answer is no, a ruling in her favor would set a precedent.)
How would the answer be legally no? Judges passing judgement on a case may set the precedent, but its not uncommon or unheard of. I think because the case might be controversial, that a judge would be more wary of their ruling, but either way, good or bad, whatever decision/judgement pass would set a precedent.
How much does it stick to the book?